flow control question

I was surprised to see certain behavior while I was implementing a basic flow control broker. I created a sender that sent lots of messages to the broker, letting the queue stack up. There was no receiver to take messages off the queue. The broker had flow control thresholds set accordingly,

Re: [HEADS UP] Proton and Proton-J 0.17.0 releases.

Yes, the Python API remains part of the existing proton repo/release alongside proton-c (which it is a binding for) and all the other language bindings. On 30 January 2017 at 19:07, Greg Oliver wrote: > Is the Python API being maintained? > > -Original Message- >

RE: [HEADS UP] Proton and Proton-J 0.17.0 releases.

Is the Python API being maintained? -Original Message- From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:robbie.gemm...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 10:06 AM To: users@qpid.apache.org Subject: [HEADS UP] Proton and Proton-J 0.17.0 releases. Hi folks, Those of you following the other threads

[HEADS UP] Proton and Proton-J 0.17.0 releases.

Hi folks, Those of you following the other threads will know I have been working on separating proton-j into its own repositories so proton[-c] and proton-j can be more independent going forward, including independent releases. As part of solidying this change, I aim to do new releases of both

Re: Patch + jira vs pull request

On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 10:56 +, Chris Richardson wrote: > I have been wondering about this too and would definitely give a +1 > to the > pull request approach if it's an option. I'd just like to add to what Robbie said: Either a patch attached to a JIRA issue or a github PR work well as a

Re: HELP -> Need C++ complation assistance/advice/guidance

On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 15:12 +, Flores, Paul A. wrote: > Hi, > > At client site.  Attempting to move from the C++ API from 0.34 to > 1.36 but have run into an aggravating issue. > > Client environment is RHEL 5 using G++ (GCC) 4.1.2.20080704 (Red Hat > 4.1.2-54).  Plan to move to RHEL 6 is in

Re: Patch + jira vs pull request

Thanks Robbie. On 30/01/17 13:19, Robbie Gemmell wrote: Saying that made me look, and it seems like the GitHub integration is indeed not enabled on the apache/qpid-java mirror. There are a few old open Pull Requests and one test PR open+closed (nice account Lorenz :P), none of which have been

Re: [NOTICE/DISCUSS] Making proton-j and proton-c more independent

On 10 January 2017 at 17:40, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On 9 January 2017 at 15:27, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> On 6 January 2017 at 21:54, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >>> On 6 January 2017 at 20:32, Andrew Stitcher

Re: [QPID java broker] Does it support Amqp management 1.0?

Also, this year we'll be looking to update and complete the AMQP Management specification on OASIS this year. I would expect the Qpid Broker for Java to keep up to date with the evolving specification. There will hopefully be additions to the management spec that will, for instance, make it

Re: Patch + jira vs pull request

Hi Adel, Sorry, no, that and everything from the bit about the GitHub PR merge button was essentially meant for other committers, i.e. folks ultimately interacting with the qpid svn repository though based on prior experience/discussion probably through using git-svn to do their work locally

Re: [QPID java broker] Does it support Amqp management 1.0?

AMQP 1.0 Management is supported on trunk, and thus will be in the 7.0 release. There is some incomplete support in earlier versions, but I wouldn't rely upon it in any way. -- Rob On 30 January 2017 at 16:29, Rabih M wrote: > Hello, > > Does the java qpid broker

[QPID java broker] Does it support Amqp management 1.0?

Hello, Does the java qpid broker supports Amqp management 1.0 ? If not, are there any plans to do it? Best regards, Rabih

Re: Patch + jira vs pull request

Hello Robbie, I don't know if your question "asuming you are actually using git-svn, which I believe many/most folks are?" was addressed to me or not. However, in our case we use basically Atlassian Stash (now known as Bitbucket Server) when mirroring the Qpid repositories. Regards, Adel

HELP -> Need C++ complation assistance/advice/guidance

Hi, At client site. Attempting to move from the C++ API from 0.34 to 1.36 but have run into an aggravating issue. Client environment is RHEL 5 using G++ (GCC) 4.1.2.20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-54). Plan to move to RHEL 6 is in the works but is not likely to occurring in the near timeframe. The

Re: Patch + jira vs pull request

Saying that made me look, and it seems like the GitHub integration is indeed not enabled on the apache/qpid-java mirror. There are a few old open Pull Requests and one test PR open+closed (nice account Lorenz :P), none of which have been visible on the list. I raised

Re: Patch + jira vs pull request

JIRA+PR or JIRA+patch, either approach is fine and works out largely the same for us in the end (almost identical if you really want, since you can get a patch by adding .patch to github pr/diff/commit URLs). Assuming the 'GitHub integration' stuff is enabled (and if it isn't, that would be an

Re: Patch + jira vs pull request

I think it is different for different components of Qpid. The Qpid broker for Java for example has not migrated its main repository to git. Also the GitHub mirror is treated as read-only. And it is quite possible that pull request might go unnoticed. So, for the Qpid broker for Java component

Re: Patch + jira vs pull request

I have been wondering about this too and would definitely give a +1 to the pull request approach if it's an option. /C On 28 January 2017 at 08:51, Adel Boutros wrote: > Hello, > > For some time we have been submitting jira issues with patches for > problems we have